Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
October 1998
Çıraklar v. Turkey - 19601/92
Judgment 28.10.1998
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Independent tribunal
Independence and impartiality of a National Security Court: violation
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
I.SCOPE OF CASE
Limited to complaints declared admissible by the Commission.
II.THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
Application for rectification of Court of Cassation’s judgment not directly accessible to applicant – domestic remedies exhausted.
Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously).
III.ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
A.Independence and impartiality
Recapitulation of case-law.
Understandable that a civilian prosecuted in a National Security Court for offences regarded ipso facto as directed against Turkey’s territorial national integrity, the democratic order or national security should be apprehensive about being tried by a bench of three judges which included a regular army officer, who was a member of the Military Legal Service.
Status of military judges provided certain guarantees of independence and impartiality making them comparable to their civilian counterparts – on the other hand, during their term of office (which lasted four years and could be renewed) they continued to belong to the army, remained subject to military discipline and had assessment reports made on them by the army, which, together with the administrative authorities, took decisions pertaining to their appointment.
Applicant could have legitimately feared that because one of the judges of the National Security Court was a military judge, it might allow itself to be unduly influenced by considerations which had nothing to do with the case.
Conclusion: violation (seven votes to two).
B.National Security Court’s refusal to hear a defence witness
Unnecessary to examine the complaint, having regard to finding that applicant’s right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal had been infringed (unanimously).
IV.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION
Pecuniary damage: claim dismissed (unanimously).
Non-pecuniary damage: judgment sufficient (unanimously).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy